https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Aug 31 12:57:45 2018
New Revision: 264017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264017=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87155] Anonymous namespace and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed trunk r264016.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Aug 31 12:38:00 2018
New Revision: 264016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264016=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87155] Anonymous namespace and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes but it would conflict with n1::n2::bob because n2 is an inline namespace.
It seems like the diagnostic is misleading, it suggests n1::bob conflicts with
itself, but actually it conflicts with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #3 from Artem Yurchenko ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
> Hm, while I understand the intent here, I wonder if clang is succeeding by
> accident? The std is not completely clear whether all anonymous namespaces
> may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Hm, while I understand the intent here, I wonder if clang is succeeding by
accident? The std is not completely clear whether all anonymous namespaces may
share the same unique identifier or not. We do,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
10 matches
Mail list logo